The Collapse Of The Soviet Union

America’s foundation was constructed on the ideal of freedom, whether that be religious, political, or individual freedom. U.S. citizens have very strong feelings about their independence and will do almost anything to protect their rights from being taken away. During the 1950s Americans were afraid that their freedom was going to be threatened and taken away by the communist style of government. The Soviet Union and America were both trying to win control on a global scale, but with the USSR being communist the paranoia of a socialism takeover was heightened. Americans were so fearful of communism that it became known as the Red Scare. All over the country people were being accused of being communist spies and federal employees were being interrogated, the U.S. was in full panic mode. The United States was so fearful of the USSR being able to gather more communist allies and take over that the U.S. stepped in militarily to protect South Korea from North Korea’s communist invasion. This battle for dominance between the nations was named the Cold War. I believe that this war was justified because there were clear threats towards the United States and their capitalist ideals. In the very beginning of the Cold War the Soviet Union successfully tested an atomic bomb. This seemed like a clear indication that the USSR had plans to use that bomb in order to establish their dominance and embark on a communist takeover. America fought to keep their freedom and rights safe from the

The fall of the Soviet Union gave childless American couples the opportunity to adopt needy, white children. Thousands upon thousands of children from Russia and Eastern Europe were adopted in New York during the 1990’s and 2000’s, and the vast majority of these adoptions produced genuinely happy families. The children were excited to have loving families and the adoptive parents were excited to have a child to love. However, some children had difficulty transitioning to life in the United States while others were victims of abuse. Almost every adoptive case I worked with had a happy ending. Every adoptive case except for one. I hesitate to say that the “child” in question was actually a child. Sometimes I think that I legitimately was dealing with pure evil in human form.

The collapse of the Soviet Union can ultimately be attributed to three broad, complex, and interconnected issues: The economy, Leadership, and Geography. All three of theses factors are interconnected and each contain several reasons why they contributed to the ultimate collapse of the Soviet Union.

The collapse of the Soviet Union ended one era of American Security Concerns, but it gave rise to another more extensive era. This era would be marked by concern over the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction throughout former Soviet countries and other unstable nations. Every president from George H.W. Bush to Obama would mark this issue as a key threat to the nation’s security. The true question is what would each of these presidents do about the threat. Since World War II the United States has filled the role of the “global police” opposing injustices and neutralizing threats throughout the world, and the threat of devastatingly powerful weapons falling into unstable hands could be treated no differently. With this in mind

The fall of the Soviet Union, rise of democratic capitalism, and the emergence of the Internet are all important attributes that define the year 2000 as the end of one period in history and the beginning of another. The year 2000 proves to be a cut-off date in history because it explicitly shows a shift toward the continuing globalization and integrations of economies, politics, people, and cultures all around the world. This process of globalization leads to increasing interdependence among countries and growing influence of the United States of America, which during this time period was the only superpower left in the world.

Following the Cold War and the fall of the Soviet Union, questions regarding what the new world order would began to arise. In the article published in 1993 “The Clash of Civilizations?”, Samuel Huntington predicts that the conflicts of the new world order would be between civilization and based in culture, rather than in ideology or economics (22). In his paper, he identifies seven (or possibly eight) civilizations that will interact with each other, provided six reasons as to why these civilizations will clash, recognizes the idea that civilizations other than the West are on the rise and makes suggestions as to how the West should act if his initial is to become true. Since the publication of his article over 22 years ago, Huntington

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or USSR was at one time one of leading world powers, only rivaled by the United States. So that begs the questions, “how could a country that was at one time so dominant fall so far?” In this essay I will examine the circumstances that led up to the Soviet Union’s eventual downfall by mainly focusing Mikhail Gorbachev’s term as leader of the Communist party of the Soviet Union and what changes he brought about through glasnost and perestroika, democratization and the national independence movements that began as a result of it, and lastly failed coup by conservative members of the USSR against Gorbachev that ultimately became the last nail in the coffin for the

Choose one of these theories and explain how it relates to the collapse of the USSR, and assess and justify whether it relates to its internal or external foreign policy.

Apart from the two great wars, the Cold War was the most remarkable feature of twentieth century, a period of extreme hostility without actual war. By the end of the Great War, Soviet Union emerged as a powerful revolutionary state that gradually evolved into an empire over the course of following decades. It served as an ideological model for one third of the world and was considered as a secure and stable society by the rest. During this period the world was divided into two distinct blocs, the proponents of democracy led by United States of America (USA) and the Socialist regimes headed by the Soviet Union. Having almost equal military parity, the hostilities between the two superpower was so great that many feared dooms day scenario in case war broke out. Although, the effort by both sides to undermine and damage the interest of each other was no hidden secret, yet the military parity resulted mostly in a stalemate. This sudden and peaceful conclusion of Cold War and breakdown of Soviet Union therefore came as a surprise to all.

Third arrow is the most difficult to launch as it touches in the structures and regulations that have protected bested interest groups.

There is a myriad of factors that accounted for the dissolution of the USSR, and the consolidation of capitalist superiority from 1991 onwards after the fall of an autocracy, and demise of a disunited provisional government. The official declaration of the termination of the Soviet Union was December 26 1991; this collapse was addressed by the west as the defeat of communism, and the end of the Cold War. To understand how and why this previously prosperous nation came to fall it is important to look at the major factors contributing to this disarray. I will examine the economic and ethnic problems the Soviet Union faced, as well as the problems with those in power.

The end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union were heralded by many as the end of history. Economic and political liberalism, it was argued, had triumphed over all other political and economic systems and was thus going to usher the world into an era of endless freedom and stability. This new global system, bounded by the principles of democracy and free market capitalism, was promoted as being the panacea for the liberation of the individual from the ills and control of old bureaucracies and class divisions. However, the attempt at liberating the individual, through market forces has led to an unprecedented rise in inequalities and the near collapse of social mobility. The liberal project has over the last two decades presided over an unequal distributive system where most of the gains of society have gone to the elite and privileged class—the same class that the liberal project was suppose to free the individual from—while the middle and working class fight for crumps.

The eventual demise of Communism in the USSR was a direct consequence of the Soviet Union’s failure to adapt to the changes occurring in the world during the 1920’s to the 1940’s. Unlike Communist China, the USSR failed to place economic growth ahead of political reform. In this regard, Russia was unsuccessful in establishing a national identity and in instituting a stable government through popular consent of its people. Moreover, Communist Russia failed to create a national identity, ignoring the multitude of ethnic minorities existing in the USSR. Arguably, the future stability of the two previously conventional Communist countries, will reflect their ability to develop a market economy, establish a stable government, and be recognized and involved on a global scale.

Since the commencement of the Czar regime to the present-day Federation, Russia has known true power. From Ivan the Terrible who had people boiled, hanged, and thrown from walls; to Josef Stalin who was responsible for the slaughter of millions of Russian citizens in the Great Purge, demonstrations of power have always had their place within Russian history.

The end of the cold war, is often considered as marking the dawn of a fundamentally different political environment. This change in environment, has brought about new salient questions by scholars and policy makers about the relevance of nuclear weapons in the world. In his article, ‘learning to love the bomb’ Jonathan Tepperman calls president Obama’s plan to rid the world off nuclear weapons wrong, dreamy, unrealistic and a big mistake. I found this article interesting as it seems rather paradoxical as he implies that the world would be much more dangerous without nuclear weapons. In this paper, I will analyse and criticise Tepperman article. Before getting down to criticisms of the points made in the article, I will try to place Tepperman’s approach conveniently in one of the theoretical shelves of strategic studies.